Cost-Effectiveness Rivaroxaban versus Enoxaparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Knee Replacement Surgery in Iran.

Background: The highest risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) is seen in patients who have undergone orthopedic surgery. One of the most common methods to reduce the risk of thromboembolism in these patients is anticoagulant prophylaxis. Rivaroxaban is one of the anticoagulants that has a lower cost than other anticoagulants and has a significant effect on people's quality of life as it is edible. The study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban as compared with enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in knee replacement patients in Iran. Methods: It was a quantitative and economic evaluation study with a cost-effectiveness approach and an applied study because its results could be used directly for policy-making and decision-making in the health system. The study was conducted in 2019 and 2020. This study considered the health system perspective. The study population included all knee replacement patients. The sample included 203 patients referred to Shafa Yahyaeian Hospital and 300 patients referred to Rasoul Hospital in Tehran. The study was conducted in two steps. A systematic review of studies was conducted in the first step. The CHEERS checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the studies in the systematic review. The EQ-5D questionnaire was used in the second step to calculate the QALY, and the cost collection form was used to calculate the direct medical cost. The data were analyzed through a decision tree, and Stata and Tree age pro softwares were the analysis tools. Also, according to the per capita GDP index for Iran in 2018, the incremental cost-effectiveness threshold was considered to be $10,000. Results: The results of this study showed that during the prophylaxis period, rivaroxaban was one and a half times less costly than enoxaparin. Quality of life in uncomplicated conditions were 0.85 QALY for rivaroxaban and 0.69 QALY for enoxaparin. Based on the results of this study, the cost of rivaroxaban during the prophylaxis was $ 160.97 and the quality of life was 0.85 QALY and the cost of enoxaparin was $ 276.07 and the quality of life was 0.69 QALY. The cost difference between the two interventions was $ 115.09 and the outcome difference was 0.16 QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $ 189.40 for rivaroxaban and $ 416.28 for enoxaparin. According to the results of this study, rivaroxaban reduced the duration of hospitalization by an average of 2 days in asymptomatic patients (prophylaxis period) compared to enoxaparin. Conclusion: Rivaroxaban, an oral medication, reduced costs and increased the quality of life in people undergoing knee replacement surgery compared with an enoxaparin injection vial. This drug was less costly for the patient and health systems and its use was cost-effective as a thromboprophylaxis drug following knee replacement surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of New Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Background: Low- and middle-income (LMICs) countries are facing with a high incidence of cardiovascular diseases and limited resources for confronting these diseases. Atrial fibrillation(AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the world that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study assessed cost-effectiveness studies of novel oral anticoagulants(NOACs) compared to Warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in LMICs. Methods: In this systematic review study, electronic databases were searched for economic evaluation studies about NOACs cost-effectiveness conducted in LMICs between 2008 and 2019. The selection of studies for review was also based on the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) guidelines. In this study, the population was restricted to patients with atrial fibrillation living in LMICs. We identified three types of drugs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban) as interventions and warfarin as the comparison therapy. Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles. Results: Sixteen articles were extracted, including four cost-effectiveness analyses and two cost-utility analyses. QHES scores ranged from 58 to 87.5 out of a possible 100 points, with a mean score of 77.34. The results of the study showed that from a social perspective, Edoxaban is the most cost-effective therapeutic option compared to warfarin and other NOACs, but Warfarin was much more cost-effective than Rivaroxaban and Apixaban. Furthermore, NOACs were more cost-effective than warfarin from the payer perspective, but from the health system perspective, all NOACs were dominated by warfarin. Conclusion: The present systematic review demonstrates that from a social perspective, Edoxaban is the optimal alternative to warfarin other NOACs for stroke prevention in patients with AF in (LMICs). one study was found on the economic evaluation of NOACs and warfarin in patients with AF in low-income countries, so further research on the economic evaluation of these drugs is recommended.

Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening condition which, in the absence of increasing diameter or rupture, often remains asymptomatic, and a diameter greater than 5.5 cm requires elective surgical repair. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with AAA through a systematic review of published health economics studies. METHODS: Using a systematic review method, an electronic search was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies published on AAA (both in English and Persian) on PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, and the national databases of Iran from 1990 to 2020 including the keywords "cost-effectiveness", "endovascular", "open surgical", and "abdominal aortic aneurysms". The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 958 studies were found, of which 16 were eligible for further study. All studies were conducted in developed countries, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and life years (LY) were used to measure the outcomes. According to the QHES checklist, most studies were of good quality. In European countries and Canada, EVAR has not been cost-effective, while most studies in the United States regard this technique as a cost-effective intervention. For example, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values ranged from $14,252.12 to $34,446.37 per QALY in the USA, while ICER was €116,600.40 per QALY in Portugal. CONCLUSION: According to the results, the EVAR technique has been more cost-effective than OSR for high-risk patients, but the need for continuous follow-up, increased costs, and re-intervention over the long term and for low-risk patients has reduced the cost-effectiveness of this method. As the health systems vary among different countries (i.e. quality of care, cost of devices, etc.), and due to the heterogeneity of studies in terms of the follow-up period, time horizon, and threshold, all of which are inherent features of economic evaluation, generalizing the results should be done with much caution, and policymaking must be based on national evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm in Iran: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is one of the most important cardiovascular diseases, especially in the elderly. People with this disease are at risk of rupture of the abdominal aorta and death. The present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair compared to open surgery in AAA patients in Iran. METHODS: A Markov chain model was developed based on the use of endovascular repair and open surgery. The base-case patient was defined as a 65-year-old man presenting with AAA diameter greater than 5 cm. The determination of costs was from the perspective of the public sector provider. QALY was used to calculate the effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and TreeAge software were used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The follow-up period was 10 years and the willingness to pay (WTP) was determined as three times the Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. RESULT: At the end of year 10, the endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) strategy gained 1 318 313 559 Iranian Rial (IRR) (67 885.29$) in cost and 3.57 QALYs in effectiveness. In contrast, the use of the open surgery repair (OSR) strategy gained 1 186 761 858 IRR (61 111.16$) in cost and 3·32 QALYs in effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing EVAR versus OSR, was 53, 346, 3757 IRR (178.36$) per QALYs, which is lower than the proposed WTP, indicating that EVAR is more expensive and more effective. Based on the Monte Carlo simulation test, EVAR is the preferred strategy in 58.6% of the population. CONCLUSION: Endovascular repair has a relative superiority compared to open surgery, and the probability of the effectiveness of endovascular repair compared to open surgery does not change with increasing willingness to pay.

Economic Evaluation of Rivaroxaban Versus Enoxaparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism After Total Knee Replacement and Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) together are called venous thromboembolism (VTE) and impose a high economic burden on healthcare systems. Thousands of people are hospitalized annually due to benign and treatable diseases but die due to PE; with the adoption of appropriate prevention, these deaths can be prevented. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin in published economic analyses for prevention of VTE after total knee (TKR) or hip replacement (THR). METHOD: In a systematic review electronic searches were performed on various online databases, including PubMed, Web of science, Embase, Scopus, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria were: studies that were conducted on the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after TKR and THR; cost-effectiveness studies conducted using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach; studies with available full-text papers; and studies written in English and published between 2007 and 2019. The exclusion criteria were: studies with partial cost effectiveness (such as effectiveness assessment, cost assessment, quality-of-life assessment); studies written in languages other than English; and all protocols, conference abstracts, and letters to the editor. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to qualitatively evaluate the studies. RESULTS: Of a total of 537 initial studies, nine papers met the inclusion criteria. The time scope of studies ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Among the selected studies, some studies had included discount rates (n = 4) and the other studies did not utilize discount rates and were set to zero percent by default (n = 5). In all studies, direct medical costs, including costs related to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE and PE, and management and monitoring of treatment costs were reviewed. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review showed that using rivaroxaban in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement reduced costs and increased quality of life. However, since most of the studies had been conducted in developed countries, it is not possible to generalize the results to developing countries. Nonetheless, given that rivaroxaban is administered orally and does not require continuous monitoring, it will be less costly for patients and health systems and is more appropriate to administer it as a thromboprophylactic drug following total knee or hip replacement surgery.